UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

April 2011

User:Laughing Man 2

• Laughing Man (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Dumb fuck still isn't signing properly, he has been told way too many times, last time a week ago by boxy and me and it seems he's either mentally challenged or he can't be arsed to use a proper sig, neither is a good excuse. The policy is clear. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:19, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Clear policy violation. He used to sign properly, and is obviously wiki-literate, so the decision to keep a non compliant link is obviously intentional. A link is needed so that people can easily find out which account is making what comment on a page, especially if you're going to start contributing to admin pages.
BTW, nice swearing and shit, thad, you sound well hard :p -- boxy 07:45, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Boxy nailed it, and is correct on all points. --Rosslessness 08:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Ugh, how irritating. And why does everyone hate on thadeo :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:45, 30 April 2011 (BST)

It must be jealousy! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:10, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - User has indeed been told repeatedly, and has shown enough wiki knowledge to know better. -- Spiderzed█ 11:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

This is awesome. You all act like I raped your fucking dog or something by not linking my signature. While I'd like to give the average wiki user the benefit of the doubt for not being a retard who can clearly read the name by the timestamp, you clearly you think too little of them. And MisterGame, pure class on your part. You really show what being a sysop is all about. So, in an effort to make you feel better about yourselves, I shall now add a sig so I can link or whatever the fuck has your panties in a bunch. -- 13:57, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Those retards have voted a long time ago in favour of requiring a userpage link in the sig - hence the policy. Also note that the idea behind the link requirement is so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. A pixelbitching game to find your 1x1px gif certainly doesn't qualify for "easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature". -- Spiderzed█ 14:15, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Oh, here we go. Some people just aren't ever satisfied. I've been poring over the signature policy and I can't see a damn thing requiring signatures to be "easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature". In fact, it explicitly states that anything not listed under "what isn't allowed" is acceptable. Neither the aforementioned ease for the reader, nor links that require a bit of thought to find, are listed. --モッズはホモです 14:50, 30 April 2011 (BST)

If we're going strictly by the policy, I believe he is correct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:53, 30 April 2011 (BST)

The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:12, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I don't see anything that says the handle portion is mandatory, though, and he's using an image rather than a handle. In editing view it's clear who made the comment. Also, if a redlink to blank userpage is permissible, I don't see why this shouldn't be: both are legal under current policy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:28, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Discussion continued on talk page.

Wait wait wait. Are you saying that an unlinked "laughing man" isn't a handle? HA -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 17:51, 30 April 2011 (BST)

No, that was definitely a handle, but likely the result of an unchecked option. Are we ruling on the previous sig or the current sig, here? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:09, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Although the lack of links was a bit... stupefying, it was the previous sig that he was brought for pretty sure. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 18:29, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Spirit of the law not the letter, nada nada nada. Asking for recognizable sig with link to userspace isn't rocketscience nor unreasonable. Also his current sig is indeed illegal, I think he has 3 days to change it into something proper. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:15, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Ah yes, the "spirit" of the law, translation for "fuck you, I'm going to abuse my powers and if you disagree I'll ban you". For what it's worth, it took me 10 seconds to realise his signature was a tiny link. 10 seconds. What exactly does "easy" mean in this context? Would you prefer if the image jumped out of your monitor and raped your face? All things considered, that would actually be a rather informative summary of Laughing Man by anyone's definition. Hell, if we're getting all WIKI LAW up in here then maybe you should be warned too, Thadeous, because your signature text is red, suggesting no userpage exists. How can I learn about you if no page exists?! What, check closer for a link? No, no, don't be stupid, people don't check for valid links around here, sonny. --モッズはホモです 15:38, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:11, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Did anyone bother to tell that all he needed to do was uncheck the “Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)” box? Not that I saw. Now he has a proper sig which AFAICT is legal per signature policy. Not Vandalism. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:44, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not much else that could have been meant by "update your preferences" and "okay i'll do so right away" but ok. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Hanlon's Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:45, 30 April 2011 (BST)

plz see above. the bit before "HA". -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 17:51, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Soft warning Yeah the original went againt policy. Another reminder would have been more prudent but whatever. Changing the sig to an image the size of an internet toll's wanker may (barely) satisfy the requirements but doing it just to spite the ops is kind of a douchy move and borders on bad faith. Just link your sig to your page like everyone else on the wiki doesn't have a problem doing and stop trying to game the ops. ~ _{17:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)}

Warned for the original unlinked signature -- boxy 00:33, 1 May 2011 (BST)

User:Laughing Man

• Laughing Man (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None required

The user has been vandalizing my danger report: [1] --Ahlek 00:00, 30 April 2011 (BST)

The user has been correcting your danger report because you are clearly too stupid to understand what NPOV means. Also, WIKI LAW --Laughing Man 00:07, 30 April 2011 (BST)

If you want to edit the danger report another user has left, either remove the whole thing, or sign it yourself. Thanks, newb error, assume good faith, don't do it again, etc, etc, not vandalism this time around. --Rosslessness 00:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism not done in bad faith. ~ _{02:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)}

NV as Ross. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism but please don't do it again, as doing so intentionally is impersonation. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:44, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism, but consider this as a wrist-slap. Just add your own sig, and all is peachy. -- Spiderzed█ 11:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:11, 30 April 2011 (BST)

User:Revenant

• Revenant (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None required

For ruining SA's bitching red text (see here: [2]) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:33, 27 April 2011 (BST)

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:48, 27 April 2011 (BST)

It's just a friggin' redirect, probably with the intention of making SA's sig more accessible. It would still have been better to ask SA first (and I'd vote Vandalism if SA would actively protest such a minor uncalled edit), but for now, I consider this as Not Vandalism. -- Spiderzed█ 14:24, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Meh down to SA really. --Rosslessness 14:25, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Editing another user page is considered vandalism, AFAIK, even if the edit in question is a redirect to the user's talk page. There were plenty of users which desired their user page to be left blank so their name would stand apart while signing --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:31, 27 April 2011 (BST)

This seems germane:

“	On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". This, while quite broad and useful, does lead to interpretation. We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism: An unwanted edit to any page. An edit that adds information arising from a misunderstanding. An edit that improves the page from a user you don't like.	”
—UDWiki:Vandalism

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:35, 27 April 2011 (BST)

The goddamned Germans ain't got nothin' to do with it!--Deadone 01:39, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Ich bin ein Arier, du Scheißkerl rassistische Atheist Schweinehund! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:57, 30 April 2011 (BST)

NV - Unless he already knew that SA wanted a red link, or does it again if SA says he wants the page gone, there is no bad faith in this edit -- boxy 14:36, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Meh - As the Boxmeister.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:39, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Regarding what Boxy said, even if we knew SA wanted a red link there's ample precedent to support sysops just stomping on someones signature without asking anyway and getting away with it. see read and iscariot. not vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 17:07, 27 April 2011 (BST)

But in both those cases, the users had illegal signatures, whereas SA's sig wasn't illegal.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:46, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Not really. There was nothing illegal regarding izzys signature, just a dick move. Same for reads pretty much although reads was much closer to the vandalism line. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:51, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Nice one, Rev. Not Vandalism -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:49, 27 April 2011 (BST)

I will agree to NV if the page is redeleted. He went deliberately against the meaning of my sig.--That filthy fucking red link 01:14, 28 April 2011 (BST)

I did it to make it easier to communicate with you. Per Vandalism policy, that is not vandalism. That said, per Specific Case Editing Guidelines you have the right to request your page(s) deleted, so I'll gladly delete it for you if you put in a request. That is, of course, no guarantee against someone helpful doing the same thing I did – if you want it to stay red, put in a protection request? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:08, 28 April 2011 (BST)

And why does it need to be easier to communicate with him? With a red link it is exactly as easy to get to his talk page as with the wiki default signature of a link to a user page. The talk page link is still at the bottom of the "edit" page you get when clicking a red link. We don't force people to link to their talk page in their signatures (as long as it's a use page, it's fine), so I think you should just butt out -- boxy 07:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)

If someone's not using the user page, then it's open to editing by anyone who wants to make helpful edits, as I did and have done many, many times in the past. If someone deliberately (as opposed to negligently) has no user page and desires it to remain that way, that is their right and they have the ability to have that expressed and enforced I the manner I mentioned.
I think someone needs a lesson in Assuming Good Faith. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:41, 30 April 2011 (BST)

You think I need a lesson in good faith? Maybe you should check my ruling again... but you're still to answer the real question I asked. Why do "red linked" users need to be easier to communicate with than anyone with a wiki default signature? -- boxy 00:16, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I suppose it could fool a infrequent user into believing that I'm a different user using a false link to throw people off. How many users do we typically have with just a red link? Not many. A blue link typically lets a user know that there is a real user and page to back up a random signature. Thanks for the deletion, btw guys.--That filthy fucking red link 11:54, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It's pretty easy to check contributions. I had a red link for months when I first started, even when I got into locations editing pretty full on. The only real problem we have with them, is the occasional problem of someone posting on the user page, thinking it is the actual talk page. But then, that can happen even with a user page, so, meh -- boxy 07:27, 2 May 2011 (BST)

A redlink is the wiki default signature, Boxy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:41, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:That Red Sweater

• That Red Sweater (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

Another user falsely reporting on the danger level of suburbs. ~ _{01:00, 26 April 2011}

Seems to be changing them from dangerous to safe and back again in a matter of minutes... meh. Worth keeping an eye on though -- boxy 02:58, 26 April 2011 (BST)

Have wrapped that up as NV for now, since we have to wrap up this archive page soonish. -- Spiderzed█ 01:08, 1 May 2011 (BST)

User:James T Kirk

• James T Kirk (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma - 3ER

From below -- boxy 23:53, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Because these are vandal alts, the relevant users need escalations: DHPD Officer 666 needs a 24 hour ban, iirc, and PecanSandie needs a first warning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:01, 25 April 2011 (BST)

Done the ban on DHPD, going to double check everything with kirk.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:06, 25 April 2011 (BST)

First warning to Pecan (Checkuser confirms that Pecan is Kirk.)--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:11, 25 April 2011 (BST)

Applied {{Altban}} to user page and protected both it and user talk page as scheduled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:46, 27 April 2011 (BST)

User:Jean-Luc Picard of the DHPD

• Jean-Luc Picard of the DHPD (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma - 3ER

Contributions consist of trying to turn the danger level map green, and a post on the Yagoton page. Spreading misinformation. I blocked him for 2 hours, but would assume a 3 edit ruling here -- boxy 07:23, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - See similar (if not the same) case as DHPD Officer666 below. Pretty sure User:James T Kirk is also the same dude. Applied same 2 hour temp ban while we clean up and potentially ban. I think 3ER was applied to Officer 666. If so, this guy should receive the same. ~ _{07:37, 24 April 2011}

Vandalism - I have an alt in Yagoton and can confirm that it is _not_ safe. 3ER wasn't applied in the case of Officer666, but I definitively would apply it here. -- Spiderzed█ 13:48, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism and permaban - Vandal alt of DHPD officer 666 - same MO and checkuser confirms.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 13:55, 24 April 2011 (BST)

permalism as yonn -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:23, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Ban applied -- boxy 23:53, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Applied {{Altban}} to user page and protected both it and user talk page as scheduled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:54, 27 April 2011 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

• DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None

DanceDanceRevolution has repeatedly edited my signature page to alter its content without permission. I have reverted said edits and requested on his talk page that he desist, but he has continued to alter my user page without offering any explanation besides that his "feet are fast." Requesting a formal warning. 甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 05:15, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism – DDR gets reported and I don't? Favouritism! Not cool bro. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:29, 20 April 2011 (BST)

First of all I'm pretty sure Malton is in America so it's favoritism okay. More importantly, you didn't repeat the reverts after being warned, so you are not in his league of criminality. However, because you did commit the same offense, I request that your vote be stricken due to conflict of interest. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 06:53, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Unfortunately you were deliberately breaking the signature policy which prohibits "wiki breaking signatures in terms of formatting or coding", or whatever the exact words are. so while I'll be a champion for the not-vandalism cause of WiKi LaW, continuing to deliberately break it will probably be the thing that lands you a warning instead, sorry iwuatb -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:57, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Of course a wikicriminal would handwave the signature policy to justify themselves without bothering to learn anything about it. The violation you cite is the restriction on "Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means." I believe "break the wiki" is putting it strongly, but that's neither here nor there, because the exact same signature policy clearly stipulates that "If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements" then "The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply." I received a warning on my talk page, but I have not been given a week to comply. Are you seriously arguing that my signature "changed in such a way as to seriously impair the operation of the wiki"? Unless you are, then your edit was not in accordance with the signature policy, and you were editing my user page without my permission. Considering your good intent, I think you deserve leniency, but you should also know better as a "wiki dragon" and that's why I believe a formal warning is appropriate by WIKI LAW. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 07:09, 20 April 2011 (BST)

You have a week to comply before being warned. That doesn't mean that someone else can't do it for you to stop it messing with the formatting on pages they read. Continuing to roll back the fixes is only likely to demonstrate that it is being kept non compliant deliberately (not because you don't know how to fix it, or don't have the time) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:51 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism Shut the fuck up. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:16, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I know my comment will probably get removed, but I find this language and posture rude, inappropriate and unneccessarily hostile, and I ask that it be rescinded or removed entirely. Furthermore this persons vote should be discounted if they are inable to make a fair contribution to this issue. Thank you. --DeRathi 7:42pm, 20 April 2011 (AEST)

Not Vandalism. Malton is in America? I think not. --Rosslessness 09:01, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Rosslessness. (P.s. Do Brit sysops now outnumber Aus ones?)--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:52, 20 April 2011 (BST)

A better question is do good sysops outnumber bad? Trick question! There are no good sysops. --Laughing Man 12:20, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. There _are_ blatant rules breaks in this case - but none of them have been done by DDR. -- Spiderzed█ 15:31, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - As above and Thad, calm down. =/ -- Cheese 18:07, 20 April 2011 (BST)

User:I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO

• I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None

IWYATB has repeatedly added the {{WikilawEnforcer}} template to Spiderzed's user page. I have reverted said edits and IWYATB continues to post the template. Requesting a formal warning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 01:20, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I edited it in as a gift to him and poking a bit of playful fun at Katthewgate, yes. I wasn't claiming ownership of his user page, I just naturally assumed he would remove it if he felt it was unreasonable. You however do not have ownership of his user page, so I interpreted your removal of content as vandalism, and was naturally reverting it. Rather than reporting you for vandalism, I made a post to your talk page requesting that we reach consensus on the issue, which you then deleted. I was under the impression that people are generally allowed a few reverts on things they believed to be vandalism before they're brought up on charges?

Sincerely,

I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO, Esq.

--甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 01:27, 20 April 2011 (BST)

comment from non-involved party moved to discussion page

FUCK YOU THIS IS A FRAME JOB --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 01:37, 20 April 2011 (BST)

You don't have a right to edit his user page unless he's said that you can. If you're willing to accept this and move on, perhaps presenting the template on his talk page and asking him if he wants to feature it, then everything will be dandy, and we won't need to go through with this. You should be wary, however, that editing another user's page without permission will be considered vandalism, unless you have a good reason for doing so.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 01:31, 20 April 2011 (BST)

If you'd told me that instead of deleting my attempt to communicate with you, I would have removed it myself and put it on his talk page immediately. Please be more courteous in the future so we can make this a wiki we're all proud of.

Sincerely,

I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO, Esq. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 01:37, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I removed your comment because it broke my page. Also, do you want help with your sig, because it appears broken (p.s. sysops may still come by and vote vandalism, but imo, if you aren't going to do it any more, I'm not bothered.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 01:41, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Soft warning Newb mistake. ~ _{01:55, 20 April 2011}

I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO, Esq. is correct that it's not automatically vandalism to edit another user's page unless it's obviously bad faith (replacing page with "PENIS", etc). Also, did the right thing by contacting the other user. Reverting Yon's removal of the template as "vandalism" is a bit of a stretch, however. I'm gonna go with Not Vandalism on this one unless Spiderzed comes and says differently.
Yon, just a reminder that even if his comment "broke your page", you had options: you could have moved/reformatted it, or at the least replied on his page after deleting it. Also, fixed your links. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:34, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Let's just give him a little rules update and move on methinks -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:56, 20 April 2011 (BST)

IWYATB hasn't contacted me, and neither can I find traces of him editing my talk page at all. And neither would I grant him any permission to edit my user page. I'm obviously not allowed to vote on this case, but if my input is of any worth, it is a "Meh". I'd be fine with him simply stopping it, as this reeks of newb mistake. -- Spiderzed█ 15:29, 20 April 2011 (BST)

User:DCC

• DCC (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism/Withdrawn
Action taken	None

• Nubis (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism/Withdrawn
Action taken	None

Here, you can see that DCC and Nubis voted on the same de-escalation proposal. Granted, they voted differently (DCC voted Yes, Nubis voted No)...but according to Nubis's talk page, Nubis is a puppet of DCC, so I'm concerned this is an instance of one person voting multiple times. Now, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to DCC and Nubis (it is possible Nubis regained his account later on)...but...uh...I kinda doubt this is the case, especially considering how most people already assumed Nubis is a sockpuppet of DCC during the last Nubis' misconduct case.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 22:07, 19 April 2011 (BST)

comments from non-involved party moved to discussion page.

Meh --Rosslessness 23:06, 19 April 2011 (BST)

Checkuser doesn't confirm: Not Vandalism. And even if it would confirm, mutually cancelling votes would probably make for contestable grounds. -- Spiderzed█ 23:22, 19 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Although Checkuser confirms that this isn't Nubis Classic, it also confirms that this isn't DCC. Or it proves neither. Either way, it looks like two different people to me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:35, 19 April 2011 (BST)

If that's the case, then I think it'd be better for me to withdraw this VB case. So I do that.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 01:02, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Who is who?, meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:40 20 April 2011 (BST)

While I'm certain nothing's changed, it has been a while and there isn't any proof. Not Vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:53, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Wow, already back in VB and I didn't even do anything yet. You stupid fucks should realize that if check user says we are 2 different accounts and one isn't clearly a motherfucking proxy then maybe we are 2 fucking different accounts. Holy shit let's make a federal case of this! Not a sock or meat puppet, you jizz mops. And I wouldn't rely on Check User since it's been a few years and people get new ISPs. But please, monitor everything I do. I like being watched.-- #99 ^DCC 14:02, 20 April 2011 (BST)

lol "federal case". you wish... oh wait, isn't this case closed already?... ummm. *bump* -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:27 20 April 2011 (BST)

When someone voices concerns on A/VB about sockpuppeting and has at least some kind of ground for suspecting, I investigate just for being able to voice an educated vote. Apart of that, I could care less. Move on, citizen. -- Spiderzed█ 15:22, 20 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - Innocent until proven otherwise. -- Cheese 18:11, 20 April 2011 (BST)

User:Zombieman 11

• Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 Hour ban

Former page blanker, returns to blank pages. Vandalism and I believe 24 hour ban. --Rosslessness 00:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

User:Sykic

• Sykic (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning?

Impersonation. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:40, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Tell him not to edit other users comments, either remove them or sign them as your own. Soft newb error. --Rosslessness 22:44, 14 April 2011 (BST)

^{Non sysop comment moved to talk page}

I'm dubious of this because he kept the "we" and did the snarky edit summary. I'll be taking a closer look tomorrow, probably.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:13, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Suppose I should present my case then. Ladyboys and Dickbutts of the court, you're all terrible. But I digress. First off, securing a single Fire Department and Church does not count as "significant progress" after what, 2 weeks of Dunell Hills being completely laid to ruin (3 years actually but hey, who's keeping track)? I merely edited it to reflect that. Additionally, I removed the absurd and baseless accusation of zerging, because apparently whining that your opponents are cheating is the new cool thing to do when you're losing, who knew? Additionally additionally, that section isn't for giving out orders to your group, so the whole "get in, barricade, cock shotguns and chug beer" part was also removed. Boy, look at all o' them words about something that's going to be ignored, huh? Maybe next time I'll just flat out delete the entry and replace it with my own. Oh wait, you'd get me for "vandalism" if I did that. Welp. --Sykic 01:09, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Just a heads up guys(above), so far nothing bad has happened and historically enforcing NPOV isn't vandalism. In this case the real issue is probably that you didn't remove the post or remove the signature so just in the future remove anything that accredits edited comments and you should be safe from the dickbuttery. --Karek^maps?! 01:29, 15 April 2011 (BST)

As Karek. The issue isn't representing a conflicting POV - doing so is encouraged, especially when there are glaring inaccuracies. The issue was rather that you changed the signed comment of a different user, making it look like he said so all the time. Just post a rebuttal of your own and sign it, and all is golden. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:28, 15 April 2011 (BST)

if that's the only dif worth reporting, IMO just give him a heads up about the rules. I think it's safe to say he's more interested in reporting accurately than impersonating, but just isn't aware of the boundaies. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:41, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Looking at the answer on the talk page, I agree with DDR. Not vandalism and an informal reminder about impersonation. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:17, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism – As Karek & Spiderzed. (Moved relevant comments from talk.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:25, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning - It's not something we encourage. There are different and better ways of handling that kind of stuff. ^{~ ~} _{07:35, 16 April 2011}

User:DHPD Officer 666 (2)

• DHPD Officer 666 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Second Warning

• Officer Alcoholic (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Perma

Filing that one as a separate report. Wiki alt use for impersonating DHPD on an NPOV page and feeding it with false information. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:40, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism warn the main (Twice now) and ban the alt.--Rosslessness 22:42, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - As Ross. I'm now really confused by the above case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Given The Dead are so large and the one's we're talking to, at least, don't know who DHPD Officer 666/Officer Alcoholic is, I think it's likely it's a goon trying to play us off against the other goons without letting on, although that's only a guess. It could, obviously, also be a DHPD member doing the same thing. We don't think so but it wouldn't be the first time we've been mistaken about the ability of our members to play fair. FWIW, both these characters exist in game and were created this month. ([3], [4]). Purple Cat ~ DHPD 07:50, 15 April 2011 (BST)

No one else ruled, warned main, Perma on alt. --Rosslessness 17:47, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Applied {{Altban}} to user page and protected both it and user talk page as scheduled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:49, 30 April 2011 (BST)

User:Max Hetfield

• Max Hetfield (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	not vandalism
Action taken	none required

Impersonation. Looks like the user has copied the code from my old user page but has not bothered to change the links, character info, group affiliation or history information. Most likely unintentional impersonation due to a newb mistake but impersonation nonetheless. I'd just like the code removed or changed. ~ _{18:00, 13 April 2011}

Soft Warning and remove the code. ~ _{18:00, 13 April 2011}

Unrelated but I am now seriously inclined to take you to misconduct. Ruling on cases you brought yourself is usually fine, but you have a clear vested interest here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:07, 13 April 2011 (BST)

You're clearly just jealous that after copying code from your own user page that he decided it was inferior to mine and replaced it with more something more awesome. ~ _{19:47, 13 April 2011}

Fuckin' loled. I didn't know he picked me first. I guess you didn't either considering this is brought up now. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:58, 13 April 2011 (BST)

I checked the page history at some point. I'm pretty sure it was before I opened the vandalism case. Don't remember. I'm only sort of half way paying attention to the wiki right now. Probably explains why I didn't stop long enough to think about not trying to rule in this case. ~ _{20:10, 13 April 2011}

Soft Warning He should have altered the code so he wouldn't be impersonating Vapor. Newb mistake though. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:08, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism Newb error, assume good faith, but remove the code. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:17, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - *Copies Ross' response from above, it's found not to be vandalism but my copied response is removed.* Long story short, remove the code.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:38, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism – Newb error, as others have already elaborated, but could be considered impersonation if wilfully continued.
Vapor, you should feel free to remove your personal information from his page; let him know what you've done and why, and maybe offer to help him make it his own? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:42, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Ross and Rev. Vapor, feel free to get back here if he refuses to accept the necessary changes. -- Spiderzed▋ 04:15, 14 April 2011 (BST)

not vandalism - lazy and a bit dumb. but this has happened before I'm quite sure and it's just a noob error as above. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:49, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalisms - Newbie mistake. -- Cheese 12:39, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Since he seems to be inactive, I customized his page so that it no longer is a direct copy of Vapor's page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:39, 17 April 2011 (BST)

User:Dabomb08

• Dabomb08 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For this rather uncreative vandalism of the Feral Undead group page. --Karek^maps?! 23:17, 11 April 2011 (BST)

He's done this before too. --Karek^maps?! 23:18, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Der. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:49, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. ~ _{23:58, 11 April 2011}

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:54, 12 April 2011 (BST)

warned -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:24, 12 April 2011 (BST)

User:WOOT

WOOT (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	1 Month Ban

He's at it again. -- Cheese 15:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - He really needs to stop.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:16, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Assuming that this is ruled vandalism, I think it'll be another month ban with a perma vote, and if that's the case, I want to say right now that I'm voting no to a permaban, just in case my internet cuts out again next week.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:54, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Has been told to stop it last time, and hasn't shaped up since in his contributions. Such I can't recognize it as a serious bid, while as a joke bid it is a lame repetition of something that already got him escalated once. Vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:43, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Consistent with earlier cases with WOOT. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:28, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Since this will likely be another escalation for WOOT, he'll receive a month ban as a minimum or permaban if we decide as such. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Permaban Vote

Sysops Only

1. No. While this is getting pretty dumb, his antics are easily stopped and of mild nature. Perma-ban isn't necessary, and nobody really seems to mind him. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)
2. No. Annoying? Sure. Worthy of a permaban? A very far shot from it. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:55, 10 April 2011 (BST)
3. No. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:45, 10 April 2011 (BST)
4. No - Just slipping my no from above in to the tally, and I think it's now conclusively not a permaban.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:02, 10 April 2011 (BST)
5. no -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)
6. No ~ _{03:54, 11 April 2011}

I don't see how puttin myself up for Sysops is vandalism at all. I was 100% serious and I believe that I am the person that this wiki needs. Haters gonna hate.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)

We are the man trying to keep you down -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:02, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Since we have unanimously decided not to permaban WOOT, this will be another month ban for him. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:18, 11 April 2011 (BST)

User:Venorx

Venorx (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	3 edit rule

Phishing. Kill it with fire. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:47, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Just undid its contribs. Recommend block per DDR (3er). ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Aha, looks like Vapor ninja'd me: rollback button > undoing 3 separate edits complete with edit summaries. Quick on the draw, I see. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:28, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism - 3er? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:51, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. And 3ER indeed: 4 edits, of which 75% are obvious vandalism. -- Spiderzed▋ 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. And yeah 3er. ~ _{02:54, 10 April 2011}

Permabanned as per 3ER. -- Spiderzed▋ 02:55, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Added {{banneduser}} to user and talk pages. Presumably these could use locking? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:27, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Scratch that, should be deleted. ↓ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:35, 10 April 2011 (BST)

“	The User: pages of permabanned spambots and vandal alts (that have no contributions showing) are to be deleted on sight.	”
—Scheduled deletions

I knew I forgot something in last night's hurry. This is however a matter of protection, as Venorx is neither an adbot, nor a vandal alt of someone who was already banned. (Not that deletion would change much given the lack of content on either site.) -- Spiderzed▋ 13:46, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah and he still has contributions showing. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:57, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I understood “contributions showing” to mean contributions which were still visible without delving into edit histories. If this is not the case, then so be it; although a case could be made that retaining the userpages serves no useful purpose, that discussion belongs on A/PD. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:09, 10 April 2011 (BST)

In that case… *cough* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:27, 10 April 2011 (BST)

You sure are an exact one. Included. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:38, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I try. Dankeschön. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:17, 12 April 2011 (BST)

User:Bankschroef

Bankschroef (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Come on. If Cornhole got taken down for something like this once, then "Banky" should go down as well. Photos from the Holocaust, blatant rascism and linking to some rather macabre stuff. Smyg 16:16, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I have to think a bit about that case, but want to point out that Cornholioo was escalated for spamming an administration page with his racist garbage. Group pages get much much more leeway. You better find a different precedent if you wish to sway opinion. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:29, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Meh, not competent enough for that. Smyg 16:33, 9 April 2011 (BST)

On further thought, I remember this case against Martino just a year ago. It is slightly different as the edit was done on someone else's talk page, but the image was also deleted back then. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the image exactly was, and if it was of the same magnitude as the one on the WT page. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:45, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I remember the image, basically the remains of holocaust victims, fully nude. More graphic than this one, in my opinion, but in that case the vandal used the image on another persons talk page for flaming. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:54, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Something like this -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:59, 9 April 2011 (BST)

It's bullshit, it's offensive but I'm actually not seeing that much "blatant" racism. Maybe that line about jews forcing multiculti upon us but meh. Also Spiderzed raises an interesting point. I'm not to keen on escalating him simply for being offensive, especially on his own group page. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:36, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Comments moved to talk page.

Porn =/= Holocaust. That image was wiped because we don't allow such graphic sexual material. This image is used to offend, and perhaps for racism. I gotta say I'm very much on the fence here though. It's offensive and plain wrong just disgusting, but it's his page and we have that freedom of speech thing. It has nothing to do with urbandead, but so does a lot of content on this wiki. I'm unsure how to think about the level of racism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:37, 9 April 2011 (BST)

In the porn context, you might want to consider the link he added to the WT page. It's.. bad. Very bad. Smyg 20:01, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Here's the revision where I removed the link. We've always considered links like that as vandalism in the past iirc. It's obviously absolutely not ok. --Karek^maps?! 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Here's something semi-relevant. User posted a goatsie picture on his user page and got escalated. Anything holocaust-y should probably go the same way. Just my thoughts. -- Cheese 17:38, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Made up my mind. This crosses a line in terms of being offensive and shocking, not mention the racism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

After some serious thought, a reluctant Not Vandalism. Yes, it is tasteless, yes, I'd rather see it deleted now than later, and yes, I eagerly await Bankschroef to step over the line or expose himself as Corn's sock. However, we have allowed such group pages as Nazi Party of Malton, Columbine Kids, National Socialist Union or Combat 18 for a very long time, so by applied customs and specific case editing guidelines, the freedom to maintain your group page as you wish seems to take the front seat. In the meantime, I recommend A/D in regards of the image, and arbies if you wish to see the group page changed. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As spiderzed. Unfortunately a lot of what Wotan's Templar is doing is mostly protected from policy and precedent, leaving a lot of it down to interpretation and who get offended at what. Ugh, I think the content is garbage but there's policy that we can shove up Wotan's arse to severely limit the offensiveness they want to achieve. Just put the obligatory NPOV statement every group has to have at the top of their group page, for instance. Other than that, it's just idiotic roleplaying and trolling, the latter of which you'd be convinced if you'd seen them in game. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:29, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Look at the revision link above, reasses. Because we precedent says that link is vandalism. --Karek^maps?! 01:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Adding that link is Vandalism, you're right, I missed that. However I still don't press for deletion of the page as vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:15, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Meh, I don't really either. It's got at least three unique reasons why it shouldn't exist unrelated to that link and one that is. Without an A/U request the second recreation of that page probably should have been escalated like the first. --Karek^maps?! 02:24, 10 April 2011 (BST)

But the previous deletions were because the content was created by a permabanned user avoiding their ban, not in any way because of the content of the page. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)

vandalism for the link. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:56, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Despite my better judgement I followed that link. Wish I hadn't. Most dispicple thing I've seen on this wiki. ~ _{04:44, 11 April 2011}

When 4 to 1 is good enough for the single oddball who deemed that NV, it should be good enough for the whole team. I'll give him a Warning and wrap this one up. In addition, the revisions showing that link will be deleted. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:22, 11 April 2011 (BST)

User:Bar27262

Bar27262 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Not entirely sure if I'm allowed to post here. Apologies if not. This user has been uniformly changing suburb status to safe, regardless of the actual situation on the ground. Gordon 14:13, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Don't worry, posting here is fine. It appears Mallrat has already talked about this to him and he's agreed to rescout contested suburbs. If there's any indication there's malice behind this it's vandalism, if he's just trying to scout everything and is being lazy or stupid then it isn't. Given he's been here for a while and the fact all of his changes are to "safe" (which can't be right- though I'd like the smallest bit of proof before ruling), leaning towards vandalism. Plus he took off Whittenside's "notoriety" boldness on the map, no idea why :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:31, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Alright, I've spent about 100AP scouting various suburbs that he's listed, and for the most part, what seems like systematically going through bunches of suburbs to label safe are actually not misinformed for the most part- I tentatively scouted the 8 block mass between New Arkham and Mornington and found his reports completely accurate, and also scouted between Dentonside and Fryerbank, all were accurate except for Fryerbank, whos SE was mostly ruined, something he couldn't have missed if he actually did dissect it when scouting from Penny Heights to Miltown, as his contributions suggest. However, while most buildings were ruined there were very little zombies in sight so this may be his misinterpretation of the guidelines for "safe" vs "dangerous" etc. and not knowing the rules.

I'm still trying to judge the rationale behind this one but I'm thinking we get more input on any evidence of malice, he may rather be a guy who may just not know the rules, or has relaxed rules of scouting and just needs a friendly reminder about accuracy when reporting. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:51, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I'm still pondering the case as a whole. However, this edit suggests the widespread danger level changes could have been a C&P job, as there was no reason to reduce Whittenside's notoriety status. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I honestly have no idea what the user was thinking when he made these changes. The reasons I thought it was vandalism are 1) The entire southern section of the map turned green, this involved 22 suburbs being updated, a number which it seemed inconceivable that one person could scout. Even assuming multiple alts there is no way that many suburbs could be possibly scouted within 160 or even 320 IP hits. 2) Suburbs such as Gulsonside are pretty much devastated and zombie infested. Even a very cursory scout would have picked up on that. 3) The suburbs were uniformly southerly. Even assuming a newly created army of scout alts, one would assume at least one or two would have spawned towards the north. I am inclined to think that any suburbs being updated accurately is the product of a fluke rather than any actual scouting.Gordon 22:54, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Good evening, and Hi. I may of missed some buildings as i was just scouting to find any zombie events/mall tours/so on, that the wiki does not say, so yes, the sub's looked safe to me. Bar27262 01:52, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Alright. Well in future please make sure you follow the criteria when doing danger reports and please don't update suburbs that you aren't >75% sure on at least, thanks. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:22, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Whittenside is safe? And why did you reduce its notoriety? -- Spiderzed▋ 03:16, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I didn't mean to reduce its notoriety, that was a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bar27262 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

How did that mistake happen? When you update a danger level, you only need to change one variable (the danger level). So seeing any other part on that page changed is highly unusual. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:11, 10 April 2011 (BST)

My money's on doing multiple updates using copy+paste. Made the same mistake myself in the distant past. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:37, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism Newb error. --Rosslessness 22:27, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Since the issue hasn't persisted and DDR found the reports largely correct, I err towards newb error as well. Just be more careful with replacing more than you intended to with C&P jobs next time, m'kay? -- Spiderzed▋ 22:31, 14 April 2011 (BST)

The case has been open nearly a week, and with no vandalism rulings, I'm closing it as Not Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 15 April 2011 (BST)

User:The many

The many (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	3 edit vandalism
Action taken	permaban

Vandalizing the DHPD main page, multiple times (see contribs). -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:11, 8 April 2011 (BST)

3ER? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:17, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Yep. Perma'd. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:30, 9 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam (3)

Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week Ban

Oh ho ho, how funny, a vandal spree. I just gave him a temporary block of 2 hours, since he was trying to cause as much damage as possible. I guess it's time for a week ban now. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:32, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Week ban it shall be. I also take bets on April 14. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:34, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, it's a wee bit silly we can't perma him as of now but meh, it's not like anything he does can't be fixed in five seconds. Also he uploaded the same image 5 times, under 5 different names for some reason. Off to A/SD! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:39, 7 April 2011 (BST)

You can actually probably find a few vandal edits from alts of his too if I had to guess, I'm assuming that he is all of the MVU and the characters that he keeps trying to add to other pages/groups might also be secondary wiki accounts. --Karek^maps?! 16:43, 7 April 2011 (BST)

After taking a closer look at his old edits, I got to agree with Vapor. There are hardly constructive edits in Shazam's history, making him IMHO eligible for 3ER. I'd feel better if the accused were aware of the potential permaban in advance (after being threatened with just temporary bans). But then again, I strongly doubt he'd make wise use of one very final chance, looking how he reacted by vandalizing the user pages of the ops serving the warnings and bans. Perma. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:41, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Actually it should be perma by now unless you guys would like a case for every single edit he made to the Necronauts page. Relevant Link. Not to mention that the accounts history beyond a complete overhaul of the Yea Bank page, in which he mentions that he's part of that rival group shown in the above link, has been completely dominated by non-contributive vandal edits, with more than a handful of page wipes that were somehow missed previously by the sysops. This is also kinda shady, and while not letter vandalism is actually nonconducive to a good wiki and obviously bad faith. You guys can and should totally perma this guy.--Karek^maps?! 16:41, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I had the impression anything not under the "3 edit rule" has to go through the normal escalation system, but I'd happily believe otherwise.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:48, 7 April 2011 (BST)

He meets the 3 edit rule actually. His group only exists to impersonate the DEM plus something like 2/3rds of his edits have been vandalism and more than a few have been missed over the course of his user history. He's obviously a vandal only account at this point. --Karek^maps?! 16:51, 7 April 2011 (BST)

If he meets the 3 edit rule, then it should have been enacted during his first or second warning a year ago, probably something went wrong there. We may as well apply it now though I guess. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:58, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Perma Plz. Because Karek says I can. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:46, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:47, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Ive enacted the week ban, discuss the other stuff as you see fit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:51, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Until its concluded, I won't update the vandal data. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Not Perma per 3ER IMO, even when counting all edits to Yea Bank as one edit. Also made a couple of good faith edits to The Younghusband Arms in regards to Malton World Cup Committee. I have no doubt he'll go on another spree and eventually end up with a Perma ruling, however. ~ _{17:46, 7 April 2011}

Actually, after reviewing contribs again I think 3ER may apply after all. The edits to The Younghusband Arms were likely another attempt to impersonate yet another group, The Malton World Cup Committee. There is no indication that an event occurred in 2010. MWCC appears to have gone completely inactive after 2006. The overhaul made to Yea Bank cannot be "deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki." per 3ER. The contributions were just too irrelevant and obscure to are completely overshadowed by the amount of vandalism happening here. I'm ruling Perma. ~ _{18:34, 7 April 2011}

Vandalism but not perma - I've never agreed with Karek's interpretation of stretching the 3 edit rule for users like this, surprised others are. Just because he made a trolling group doesn't mean he's a dedicated vandal account which is what the 3 edit rule is supposed to stop. Besides, somehow we're expected to ignore a year of everyone thinking this guy isn't permabannable only to apply a retrospective permaban now? ew. A weeks great, then a month, if he's anywhere as bad as you guys seem to think he is he'll be on the perma vote in no time. Widening the criteria for 3er to interpretation for things like this will create more trouble than it's worth, which is why we never did it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:06, 8 April 2011 (BST)

And I almost completely accidentally ran into this misconduct case heavily related to using that mentality with Aichon. here -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:08, 8 April 2011 (BST)

To be fair I could make his last escalation case right now if you really wanted for the edits to the Necronauts page but after certain dramas I'm really shocked you'd still consider using any case you made as relevant precedent for your points, especially when there is commentary in the ruling that this is exactly why the rule exits and there isn't comparison in the contributions of Shazam to a once productive good user banned in that case. The only edits even in question as far as non-bad faith are Yea Bank, and with the Malton World Cup Committee being added as part of it by said user even that's at best borderline. It takes more of a strech to claim relation to that precedent than it does to show Shazam is a vandalism only account and has been treated too leniently for some time due to lack of actual review on the part of the ruling sysops in his original cases. --Karek^maps?! 02:28, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Anyone can submit Shazzam here for 3er, not just a sysop, so as far as actual review goes it's not just the sysops but the whole community that has overlooked it all, still a bit much to just throw that all away because he went on one vandal spree TBH. You mention yea bank as the non-bad faith edit, and for sake of argument let's say it is so (which IMO it is), it only needs one good faith edit before a 3ER banning is invalid. As far as the link I gave, I wasn't specifically labelling it as a precedent or I would have used that word, I just said it was heavily related: it's a demonstration that the only time people have made the choice of pushing the 3ER this far it was misconducted, plus my finger was more pointing at what I said in the case (which is a retrospective of how the wiki has dealt with 3ER so far and why we haven't pushed the envelope since its creation). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:21, 8 April 2011 (BST)

I really just want to know if you view his postings on behalf of the disbanded Malton World Cup Committee as group impersonation or not and if it's worth having a discussion about what is and isn't impersonation of a group or vandalism when it's done. Like is the MVU page stuff where they claim to be part of the DEM impersonation? It's probably the most worth discussion part of this case and, if I had to guess, the difference of opinion for you.--Karek^maps?! 04:39, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - not comfortable with applying the 3 edit rule to this account though. Too many contributions, which, while they may be of questionable validity, arn't obvious vandalism, which is what the 3ER was set up to combat -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:29 8 April 2011 (BST)

It's obviously vandalism, however the matter of applying the 3ER: 3 for perma, 2 against perma, 1 not specified. We can wait another day in case someone else chips in. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:04, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Honestly, even though I consider Shazam as a three edit vandal, I am highly uncomfortable with permabanning someone on such a very slight majority and with such a contested claim. 3ER is meant for clear-cut cases with little room for argument. And while it is a different beast policy-wise, regular permaban vote requires a 2/3 majority for a reason. I might adjust my vote to plain vandalism just to keep us on the safe side in this case. -- Spiderzed▋ 09:46, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - But not a permaban. His group page edits weren't vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:26, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Thanks Yonnua. Not enough for permaban so I'm closing this as a week ban. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:40, 9 April 2011 (BST)

For the record I'm fine with the ruling as it ended but i believe there should be more consensus about the rule and when it can or cannot be invoked. I'll probably open up a Policy Discussion on the point when I get a chance. ~ _{19:03, 9 April 2011}

User:DHPD Officer 666

User:DHPD Officer 666 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Having just checked by creating an alt myself and wandering around the zombie covered wasteland that is Molebank, I'm happy to confirm all his recent updates to the danger map are complete balderdash. Thoughts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 6 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not real anxious to see The Dead related A/VB cases just yet. AS DDR said on A/PT, let's not be too reactionary. Perhaps just try to handle it through discussion unless it just gets ridiculous. It's not 3ER and it's not very blatant vandalism. Perhaps Officer 666 is trying to play the system and he should be made aware that doing so can possibly result in A/VB cases. I'm going to go with Not Vandalism with a side of don't do that and I'll be watching their contribs. ~ _{22:19, 6 April 2011}

That isn't what reactionary means... <.< Also, I'm kind of with Vapor on this. I'm pretty much thinking not, but with a soft warning that if he keeps doing it he'll be back here.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:55, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - normal result for cases like these. slap on a warning and tell him forging stuff is wrong. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:16, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - seems like a bad faith attempt to hand out false information and make The Dead seem bigger than they are right now while their babahs are busy leveling. Give him a proper warning. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:21, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Um, what? This guy was going around declaring all the suburbs safe. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:29, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Seems like a bad faith attempt to pretend the Dead isn't ten times larger than any other group regardless of levels. Of course, given his group association it isn't that surprising. --Laughing Man 23:36, 6 April 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Oh, I plainly wondered if someone would RAEG enough to even forget to sign properly if I reason like that. Looks like someone does -- Spiderzed▋ 04:10, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. User name, post date, dashes. The only thing that seemed to be missing was a link to my user page and if that's what got your panties in a bunch you've got problems you may want to look into. --Laughing Man 04:46, 7 April 2011 (BST) (User page link omitted on purpose. Deal with it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

K -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:34, 7 April 2011 (BST)

We'd be happy to see him banned. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 12:45, 7 April 2011 (BST)

If it wasn't clear from me bringing it here, I think its Vandalism. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:19, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Time to clear another case from limbo. With three to one, I think this is clearly vandalism. The sole question that remains is if 3ER applies or not. I think this is a case of 3ER looking at the solely falsifying contributions and at the user name that is meant to annoy the DHPD (further indicating that this account is likely not meant to contribute to the wiki in a constructive way). But as at least Vapor disagrees, I want to see that cleared up before I step over the line. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:43, 11 April 2011 (BST)

It's three to two, if you look at my not under Vapor's. But yeah, looks like 3ER to me, if its been ruled vandalism. Personally, I don't think it is, but, if its vandalism, its probably 3ER.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:58, 11 April 2011 (BST)

My preference is to give him a chance to be contributive (edit: still with a warning as per this case). Tell him that falsifying stuff is against the spirit of the wiki and can land you a ban. If he continues he will still be 3ERable as per recent sysop interest (in what I guess I'll call "retrospective" 3ER analysis). Permabanning won't solve anything especially when he hasn't yet been told that forgery in the mainspace is against the rules on the wiki. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:19, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Judging by the throwaway nature of the account and the multiple ip's it used in such a short time, i doubt it has a future. But a normal warning is fine by me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:43, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I'm fine if it is deemed vandalism with a proper warning. I might lean towards soft warning in this case but warn him as you see fit. I wouldn't push 3ER, though. ~ _{14:55, 11 April 2011}

Now editing as User:Officer Alcoholic. Ban the alt, warn the main?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:24, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Checkuser confirms. Open a new case. Perma the alt and warn the main. ~ _{22:28, 13 April 2011}

With the recurrence as an alt and a majority ruling vandalism, this is closed as Vandalism. --Rosslessness 17:46, 15 April 2011 (BST)

User:Domino Harvey

Domino Harvey (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Blanked Letum Corporation--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:15, 5 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Gordon and Domino are the same person. Gordon just had used the wrong wiki account. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:18, 5 April 2011 (BST)

then both he and I are silly people--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:19, 5 April 2011 (BST)

Yes I am. Gordon 23:22, 5 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam(2)

Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 hour ban

Replaced Spiderzed's User page with Image:bird.jpg. I slapped a temporary 2 hour ban while we work out ruling. ~ _{15:25, 4 April 2011}

Vandalism - His second this month. Likely in response to his 24h ban from below. ~ _{15:27, 4 April 2011}

The same was done to the talk page also replaced with bird--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:32, 4 April 2011 (BST)

Did you want him to vandalise your user page? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:36 4 April 2011 (BST)

For the record, I didn't want to see my talk page vandalized. Neither will I rule, as I am an involved party. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:39, 4 April 2011 (BST)

I'm sorry... but apparently we're not allowed to assume that you don't want your pages vandalised. I blame "political correctness gone mad!" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:47 4 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - escalate that funny fellow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:36 4 April 2011 (BST)

He's getting an 48 hour ban. Thanks for catching the talk page, Michaelson. - ~ _{15:39, 4 April 2011}

user:XJENSENx115x

XJENSENx115x (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	3-Edit Rule

Only contribs are blanking DHPD pages. Permabanned.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:18, 2 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam

Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24h ban

These edits look like a clear case of vandalism. It's not the first time, by the way (case 1, case 2). Regards, G F J 16:20, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. Not a three edit vandal though, as the user had also created and maintained a legitimate group page in the past. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:39, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism. ~ _{17:02, 2 April 2011}

Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Verdict is vandalism. On Shazam's escalation level, that means a 24 hour ban. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:33, 2 April 2011 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Soft warning

Putting a user who hasn't edited in 7 months up for promotion. [5]. Of course he'll claim seriousness despite any evidence but he hasn't even notified the user about it so all actions just lead to drama wanking. Sigh. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:17, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Are you psychic DDR? I mean come on, you must be psychic to assume all of this. Are you going to A/VB everyone who vouched too?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Of course not. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:24, 2 April 2011 (BST)

You guys might want to check your calendars. Just saying. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:37, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Ah, well unfortunately I live in Australia so it's been 2nd for 11 hours now, forgive me for overlooking that. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:39, 2 April 2011 (BST)

dum dum dum! -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 04:47 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - Spiderzed knows not to do this. Bid should be moved to the talk as per precedent.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 01:22, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Given further investigation (and some interesting irc logs my laptop picked up) I'm going for a Soft Warning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:52, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Apoligies to all, in australia April fools has been over for a while. As long as it's removed after GMT April 1st ends, I don't see anything wrong with pushing the envelope for April fools. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:48, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Boxy has beaten me to the actual bid, but I removed the news entry (which I didn't put up in the first place). All traces should be gone, unless I miss something? -- Spiderzed▋ 11:36, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I have a relevant question. Were the Grim promotion or the Iscariot promotion escalated? Cause if not then there's no reason why this bid is any different, bids a bid and even a joke bid that won't pass still means community discussion on a user's qualification so there's no way it's harmful to the page or spamming. --Karek^maps?! 04:08, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Answered it myself, I hope this link is good enough to settle this since it's both unanimous and involving the reporter --Karek^maps?! 04:14, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Comments moved to talk page.

Even more recent precedent about humorous use of admin pages. And I picked Jerrel purposefully, because his history should make it crystal-clear that this isn't a serious bid, and because it gave me an excuse to use his involuntarily hilarious campaign assets table :P -- Spiderzed▋ 11:36, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I would have thought it was pretty obvious this one was an April Fools? C'mon people... ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

11:44, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Meh It wasn't very funny. I don't think this is worth an escalation, but the bid should be pulled off now, it's spam and especially since A/PM is already so cluttered. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:12, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed, don't do this again. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:08, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Don't plan to. Not for the next 364 days at least :P -- Spiderzed▋ 14:19, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning. ~ _{17:02, 2 April 2011}

Question - Spiderzed, why did you post the bid?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

The joke bid was put up for April's Fool day, to celebrate the holiday and lighten up the wiki a bit. From my knowledge of joking use of admin pages (Karl vs Ash arbies, Hagnat's demotion and Grim's promotion just to pick three recent ones), I knew that a first-time joke is tolerated and wouldn't be considered vandalism. I don't know even a single precedent where such a thing has been deemed vandalism, and neither has one been brought up in this discussion so far. I would expect an escalation even less so given the seasonal context and given that I don't have history of repeatedly putting up jokes. (The latter might get me escalated as per Jerrel and Woot precedent, but as of now, the case isn't comparable. What got them escalated was repetition, not futility.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:57, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually, Woot was escalated for his first bid, iirc. Also, I take it these are straight answers, and that if I log on to redrum's irc, I won't find you, Karek and Sexualharrison co-ordinating your responses, right?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:01, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Scratch that, his second bid was, at which point he expressly said he didn't know doign it a month later was bad.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:10, 2 April 2011 (BST)

yon hate to break this to you.. i have a life. and you all should lighten the fuck up. spidey made a joke. give it a rest.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:52 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By way of clarification: as author of that last bid, I should inform you that it was ha ha only serious. I am still of the opinion that Grim would be an asset to the UDWiki, but I sincerely doubt he would do so again of his own volition. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:36, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I know it seems like a backflip but (now I understand the april fool context) I don't think there is any harm in posting something as a joke like that if it is only going to exist on the one day, even given the context of A/PM already being bogged up lately. And you gotta admit, it did get us. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:21, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Not vandalism - but spidy should take this as a soft warning about messing up admin pages with jokes. There's enough of that going on, without encouraging more... and none of these on A/VB next year, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:32 3 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism just to formalise my opinion- and also as Boxy: I recommend A/A next year ;D -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:46, 3 April 2011 (BST)

So far, the case seems to be closing as not vandalism, but soft warnings seem wanted, so please make it a less.... sensitive place next time you want to do an April Fool's, Spidey, or anyone who's planning something big next year. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:51, 5 April 2011 (BST)

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec